• tankfox@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 days ago

    Radar works like this; imagine you’re playing hide and seek in the woods after dark. You have a flashlight and you think it’s a good idea to shine it around looking for your buddies, and if you see them with the flashlight that’s the radar dot. Making the dot big is like having all your buddies who are supposed to be hiding also having REALLY BIG flashlights, so bright that you can’t see what you’re looking at very well.

    In warfare the hide and seek game also includes a gun, and even a really bright light still more or less tells you exactly where it’s coming from allowing you to shoot at the light until it goes out. Not great for the survivability of the hiders!

    The smart hider might set up their jamming light somewhere else so the seeker shoots at nothing, however the lights are still very expensive and they make cheap rockets designed to home in directly on radar and blow it up. The least expensive way overall for the hider to avoid the seeker is for the hider to wear all black clothing and be small.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days ago

      hider to wear all black clothing and be small.

      Now I’m imagining a chibi style anthropomorphic plane wearing all black clothes trying to be sneaky.

      You did this to me.

    • PNW clouds@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      If anyone suddenly found themselves wondering if it’s home in or hone in, from the grammerist.com

      “Home in and hone in are different since home in is to direct attention, while hone in is to perfect a skill. The two phrases seem the same because of how they are used in sentences.”

      It also says hone in is used informally for home in and generally accepted even though it’s not really correct usage. “Home in” exists because of the homing pigeons.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      however the lights are still very expensive and they make cheap rockets designed to home in directly on radar and blow it up

      why do you hate momma MIC and daddy pentagon and our economy and good paying working class jobs

    • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      So like maybe I’m dumb, but instead of like electronic warfare, couldn’t you disperse maybe some really probably toxic, radar reflecting material or vapor on a radar site?

      Like radar sweeps aren’t exactly undetectable and they also give their location don’t they?

      • tankfox@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        We do that, it’s called bombs. We bomb the radar when we can, which makes it not work. If you can get close enough to disperse something, you’re close enough to drop a bomb which has the advantage of preventing the radar from working again later.

        Radar sweeps do give away their location, and radiation seeking missiles exist whose only job is to lock on to where radar is coming from and make it blow up even if the radar tries to turn off.

        As someone else mentioned chaff can also be effective but it’s mostly used against missiles with little radars in the nose, to confuse that little radar and make the missile miss.

        What IS sometimes done is an electronic warfare plane will fly off to where the strike team isn’t and go make a lot of radio noise, so when the strike team comes along the radar is busy looking in the wrong spot. This is how Ukraine sank the Moskva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva , a decoy made noise over at 6 o clock while cruise missiles came in from 9 o clock. Absolutely textbook maneuver!

        • EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          We bomb the radar when we can, which makes it not work

          I’m gonna need to see some peer reviewed source for that, m8

  • JebanuusPisusII@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    Drone swarm with flat fronts all around the jet, randomly repositioning so that actual target is never in the same place on the signature?

  • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    How about instead of one really big dot, you just send lots and lots of tiny dots! How many are there? I don’t know!

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    The 1980s answer was they also have humans on the ground reporting the plane in the sky. Once they know where you are generally, they can narrow with heat and laser acquisition.

    In 2025, I don’t know where the tech is.

  • KulunkelBoom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    The large dot could conceivably be unscrambled with code to provide the accurate location of the object.